At one time, essentially everyone used the M42-mount, but then each company started using their own mount. I’ve always felt that each company had their own priorities. For example, Canon went directly to the EF-mount in the late 1980’s; Nikon and Pentax got there eventually - just before Canon and Nikon released their MILC mounts - but Nikon maintained compatibility with their older mount by going to electronic control of aperture first, while Pentax maintained compatibility with their older mount by going to in-lens focus motors first.

nealbralley, actually the higher resolution sensors in cameras DOES show the shortcomings of lower resolving modern lenses, just a fact.

Modern lenses are built to different standards of resolution and you DO need to match the lens resolution to your camera's sensor resolution to get the best sharpness and detail in your images,, a fact of the physics of the higher pixel density of those higher megapixel sensors .

When I moved up from my 24mp fullframe sensor A7III and A9 cameras to my 61mp sensor A7RIV and 50mp sensor of my A1, I had current modern lenses that could resolve my previous 24mp sensors, but those lenses COULD NOT resolve that 61mp sensor of my A7RIV and 50mp sensor of my A1.

I sold those modern current lenses that could not resolve my 61mp A7RIV and 50mp A1. And now only use current modern lenses that can fully resolve those high megapixel sensors.

Here is SAB (SonyAlphaBlog) MTF-standard sharpness testing(tested on the 61mp A7RIV) that show which modern E-mount lenses can fully resolve that 61mp sensor of the A7RIV, A7RV, and the 50mp sensor of the A1.

Lenses that tested outstanding and excellent ARE good enough resolution for my high 50mp and 61 megapixel cameras. But those lenses that tested lower than that are better suited for lower megapixel cameras.

In reality an image made with say a lower 24mp sensor made with a modern current lens that tested only Very good or good in this SAB testing, will actually have better apparent sharpness than a image made with a 61mp sensor camera and a lens that tested only very good or good. Just a fact

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

(quote from SAB)
"1.1 Getting the most of the sensor of the (61mp) A7RIV / RV
The Sony A7RIV & A7RV with their 61Mpix will not give you better results than the 42Mpix of the A7RIII or the 33Mpix of the A7IV or the 24Mpix of the A7III if your lenses can not resolve such a high pixel density

The resolving power of a lens is measured by its ability to differentiate two lines or points in an object. The greater the resolving power, the more details will be visible on your final image up to the number of Mpix of you sensor

This is summarized in the “Sharpness of the lens” with in general reach its max at Aperture around F5.6-F8 for any lens

Most lens have enough resolving power for the density of a 24Mpix full frame sensor but the A7RIV with is crazy high pixel density is torturing the lenses and there are very few that can reveal the full potential of the sensor

Also this full potential will only be achieved in ideal conditions with speed of min 1/250 handled and low ISO < 800 ISO

You can still take great photos at 1/60sec and 6400 ISO but this won’t be better than on a 24 Mpix camera

So before buying/upgrading to an (61mp) A7RIV check the lenses you have or should buy , for many people a (33mp) A7IV, (24mp) A7III or (42mp) A7RIII could be a better option. " (end quote)

This is the reality nealbralley.

Cheers and best to you.

I have found that less than stellar lenses create better images on a camera with high resolution than they did on any lower resolution camera, if good technique is used. Of course better lenses will produce better results. Otherwise there would not be any reason to buy a premium lens.

But the lore that says lower quality lenses have to go into the garbage as soon as one buys a high resolution camera is just idiotic babbling, whether here on UHH or on other alledged photographic sources.

The general advice is to spend your money buying good lenses and use them on whatever camera you have. Buying a cheap lens just to cover a focal length is not a smart move. That's good advice.

I've generally heeded that advice. I don't buy lenses "just because." I've always bought a certain lens because I've wanted a particular focal length. I'm covered from fisheye to 300mm with a 1.4 extender. With all the online reviews of new Nikon lenses, I haven't had even a twinge of temptation to buy one. It was just the opposite with then Zfc, Z6II, and Z8. As each one was introduced, and I watched the endless reviews online, I couldn't resist. Reading all the positive comments here added to my "need" to have one. When Nikon introduced the DSLR that looked like the Nikon F, I was tempted, so I had the get the fc. I think I favor bodies over lenses because lenses are like tires on a car, and cameras are like the car itself. I've never gotten excited about buying a new set of tires. How about you?

I have found that less than stellar lenses create better images on a camera with high resolution than they did on any lower resolution camera, if good technique is used. Of course better lenses will produce better results. Otherwise there would not be any reason to buy a premium lens.

But the lore that says lower quality lenses have to go into the garbage as soon as one buys a high resolution camera is just idiotic babbling, whether here on UHH or on other alledged photographic sources.

Larryepage the science just doesn't agree with your assumption, do better research into this please. You really do need to match your lens resolution with the image sensor resolution to get the better image quality, resolution and detail. That is just a fact, whether or not you believe it, sorry.

Of course you can still make decent photos with a lower resolving lens on a high megapixel camera, but the greater pixel density of that higher megapixel sensor will strain that lower resolving lens to resolve enough for that greater pixel density, and the result will be worse apparent sharpness and resolution in that image.

The key is I said "lower resolving" lenses, not less expensive lenses. There are many affordable and less expensive lenses on the market that still have enough resolving ability for those high megapixel sensor cameras.

I saw all this firsthand when shooting my lower resolving lens that were fine on my 24mp A7III and A9 and then tried them on my 61mp A7RIV and 50mp A1.

Why pay for those high megapixel cameras and all their ultimate resolution and detail possible with their greater pixel density, and then totally throw that away by using lenses that CAN NOT resolve those sensors that you paid for. You were better off sticking with your lower megapixel cameras in that case.

I never said throw away those lower resolving lenses if you move to high megapixel cameras. I didn't throw mine away, I sold and traded them in on buying better resolving lenses. No wasted value.

The science and reality is clear here, even if stubborn UHHers refuse to accept the reality and the science. LOL

From GadgetMomentum: Feb. 2023:
(quote) " Both lens resolution and sensor megapixel count matter similarly for your photo quality.

A high-megapixel sensor won’t improve your photo quality if you only have low-resolution lenses. Similarly, high-resolution lenses won’t significantly improve your photo quality if your camera only has a low-megapixel sensor." (end quote)

Cheers and best to you.

It is a fact that I have already examined at length.

When I got my A7 II I was able to review the performance of all of my Nikon, Leica, Voigtlander, Tamron and Zeiss lenses on the same 24MP sensor. I sold a couple of the lenses to KEH because they did not perform as well from corner to corner as others.

Then I got the Z7 and repeated the test on all of those lenses plus a couple of additional Sony lenses at 45.7MP. A couple more went to KEH.

Finally I had the Bayer array removed from the A7 II and compared it to the Z7 using the same lens. This confirmed that the monochrome 24MP sensor produces about the same sharpness (by skipping the demosaicing step during the raw conversion) as the 45.7MP sensor that still has its Bayer array.

These are not just opinions. Anyone who understands the underlying principles and looks objectively will get the same result.